To subscribe to email updates for Climate Shifts, click here to open the subscribe link in a new window. For future reference, you can also find this page by clicking ‘log in’ in the bottom right corner.

By subscribing to Climate Shifts, any new updates and posts will be emailed via a ‘daily digest’ (i.e. one email per day), so your inbox won’t get overfilled by hundreds of posts.

Simply click “Register” to take you to the next step, and enter a username and your email address.

An email with a password will be sent to the email address you entered during the step above. Don’t worry if the password is hard to remember, you can change this later on.

Simply enter your username and password, and you are instantly added to the emailing list to recieve a daily digest with new posts and updates from Climate Shifts.

If you have any problems with your subscription, please contact climateshifts@gmail.com

8 Responses to Email Updates

I accept there ae probably no more than a hand full of people that seem to comprehend how the world climate system works. For your side your science has been so politically tainted and the propoganda so vicious that it is not believable (to a lay person).

My very -very brief comments as below.

THE PUBLIC WILL WISE UP TO AGW ALARMISM
Rudd’s 12 month reprieve on ETS is shrewd politics pre next election. Brown is an environmental zealot predictably irrational and noisy. Both are laypersons, AGW believers and alarmists, But what is Turnbull about, bullied into CO2 reduction policies, or avoiding being smeared if he disagrees, or is he a believer?

It’s tough for the AGW lobby as “virtually everyone now agrees that the direct warming effect from extra CO2 is relatively small – too small to be of practical concern” – Dr Spencer!

Unless our politicians live under a rock or don’t read, the above facts would not be news to them if they keep informed!

Flannery (kangaroo expert) and Hoegh-Gulgerg (marine life expert), as CO2 crusaders may now be looking for that rock to hide, Garnaut (economist-political) wouldn’t know, his report and agenda is political (after his idol the now discredited Sterns).

Then there are the propagandists, Church of Earth bodies WWF, ACF, ACI, Green Peace, even CSIRO, the ABC, the AGE, and individuals Dee (Fox weatherman), Gell (TV weatherman) journos from Melbourne papers, Toohey (AFR), Karoly (Australian), Manne (Australian), Galacho (Herald-Sun), Breusch (AFR). Not much interest in truths their; all AGW believers and some alarmists.

In the US Congress the Dems and Reps are baulking at a probable “futile” cap – and –trade bill, described by some as a “demented” and “monstrously stupid” bill. Is Rudd tuned in to that and playing a waiting game? Obama is still a mystery, he is a layperson, but is on a “CO2 free” agenda, and is ready to legislate that AGW is fact if necessary. That’s politics!

AGW alarmism is crucial to political fanatics seeking revenge, so lies, fraudulent claims, indoctrination by main stream media, lobbying, whatever it takes to win to take control, the means to justify the end, nothing is beyond self ridicule. The stakes are high the control of living standards and freedoms for the proceeding decades is paramount. The “Greens’ lists on modern living bans”, are out, the extreme Greens are a contemptible lot.

Then there are financiers and business with vested interests, the rent seekers, and academics and researchers building careers on CO2, and all sorts of parasites on the gravy train demonizing carbon.

An example of desperate deception, Wong, probably on cue from US-EPA has exposed herself to ridicule by claiming CO2 is a pollutant, foul dirty impure. We exhale CO2 in concentration about 100 times more than is in the atmosphere! CO2 is crucial to all life! It vergers on the bizarre but straight faced that is what she said!

No science just layperson facts;

~Of the total GHG in the atmosphere, water vapor is dominant at between 85-90%, clouds at 5% or 10%, CO2 is at only 3%; all up the total GHG provides a basic 33C surface warming to the planet.

~The man made CO2 annual flux is 7-10bill tones, less than 5% of the CO2 emitted by plants, land and ocean at 210bill tones.

~For every 100,000 atmosphere molecules there are currently 39 CO2 molecules. There will be 40 CO2 molecules in 5 years, and that may double to 80 molecules by end of century providing we don’t run out of oil and gas!

~A doubling of a very small man-made CO2 quantity (0.04% to 0.08%) is still a very small proportion of the total GHG. The effect on temperature would be very small.

From the time IPCC was set up 20 years ago to specifically propose a scientific based argument that man made CO2 emissions would cause catastrophic climates; you know we will frazzle, dry up, then drown, their mission has been relentless.

IPCC FAR (2007) targeted politicians with a fraudulent but now discredited report. It was easy. The science is complex, there are so many interdependencies, so the IPCC modelers mimicked the recent past “weather” whilst manipulating input forcings and climate sensitivities to link CO2 to a catastrophic future. They still continue their “astrology like” behavior.

Obama (last month) and Rudd (in 2007) said “the science is settled”. Stupid comments! The science of climate is far from settled. That is not a statement of leadership or integrity. In most jobs that would be a negligent act. Intelligent leadership and integrity would refer science argument to independent peer review and engage continuing diverse research to understand and settle beyond dispute.

Obama and Rudd know there are no currently known technologies to replace fossil fuels on the massive scale necessary for world energy needs on a daily basis (notwithstanding nuclear electrical energy). They know renewable methods only nibble at the edges and cannot power our current lifestyles and future populations. We would endure decades of power shortages until an advanced technology is discovered. Stupid again, no it is politics stupid!

Yes, water vapor is a greenhouse gas; but that system is in equilibrium. The increase of C02 via fossil fuels is not. If there’s nothing wrong, then why would the warmest summers recorded at the Arctic coincide with the increase of pCO2? Why would CO2 be dissolving into the ocean, the world’s only true carbon sink, and be disassociating in such a way that it raises bicarbonate levels, drops carbonate levels, potentially bad news for any marine calcifying organism. This phenomenon is also poised to lower the pH of the ocean to a more acidic point that it has seen in several geological epochs.

This is a problem. We have entered a phase of human history in which our species have become a planetary force; research is needed to determine to what extent, but the global climate is nearing a tipping point that is almost certainly human-caused.

Please bother to inform yourself. Not having a background in the science is no excuse for posting half-researched dribble.

I just find it amazing that for the past 10 to 15 years there’s been a great awareness about climate change and yet very little has changed. You can argue that the whole “green movement” started back in the 70′s yet everything is getting progressively worse. It almost seems like there needs to be something that will wake us all up – as if the natural disaster’s aren’t warning enough. The problem is that “change” has become a political bargaining tool and it will probably remain one until its too late. * Danika

I have a baby, and the more I see how things are changing, the more I am afraid and convinced that my kid will grow up in a world that is so much worse than I have known as a child. Politicians and lobbyists can politicize the issue as much as they want, but the bottom line is that we, as a human race, have erred and erred badly. Now it is our children who will have to pay the price of our folly.

Brad – you are so right. Sometimes I wake up and I asked the question, are these people ignorant of the facts produced by thousands of highly qualified experts or are they simply unethical, choosing to ignore the information for their selfish betterment. The latter is the more frightening.

I agree with you Brad, I have a two-year old daughter. And, I realized that if we don’t take action to stop climate change(global warming), sure our grandchildren and even our grandchildren’s children will suffer the consequences. We have to help each other by start doing small things, and soon when all people will be aware of it, we can make a change. I hope politicians and big capitalists who ignore this changes will soon realize what lies in the future.

I completely concur… It’s like no one is able to think in the abstract, so they just swallow the propaganda.

I’m a granola-crunching tree hugger, but I can think! It’s not hard to see how certain politicians are trying to ride the big green wave to garner votes or funding from people who think “they get it.”

What amazes me is that people take some measurements of things we haven’t been measuring for very long (as far as human history) and because there are changes everyone freaks out like they now know something… when they don’t know anything.

It’s like the people that say they are safe from flooding because they live in the 500-year flood plain! Like Nature has read the rules and has agreed to only flood there once every 500 years. It’s a statistical absurdity because we don’t really have valid data for the last 500 years, and even if we did, it’s just an assumption for actuarial science (which has its usefulness) mostly for the benefit of hedging insurance company losses.

Everything has an agenda, you just have to follow the money. If there’s no money, the trail won’t be very wide.

I do agree that industry should strive to leave a smaller footprint, simply because it’s logical not to mess with the environment that we live in… dumping mercury in rivers is not a good idea.

I love the idea of reducing my carbon footprint… but I’m not naive enough to believe that purchasing carbon offsets reduces my carbon output. It’s just green fleecing… and it allows big corporations to put a better face out there so it looks like they care. If they cared, they wouldn’t buy carbon offsets… they’d reduce their true footprint.